Social Media and Engagement Editor and photographer for the Telegraph.

Should defence spending be allowed to drop below Nato's 2% of GDP level?

Posted 4 years.

12 Comments

  • Ben Wright - 3 years ago

    Suck my floppy dick Elliot Newman

  • Gary - 3 years ago

    When people on the street are interviewed about what matters to them , the answer is generally NHS, Education, Welfare ... So are the people of this country just taking the fact that they are protected 24/7 every day , every minute by dedicated and hard working service men and women that keep them safe, simply for granted. Not once have i heard a member of the public state defence ! We are slowly becoming an also ran in the world of defence as the dangerous Mr Putin tests our defences on a daily basis. I live by the South Coast , Russian ships are sailing up the Solent , Russian military jets flying over head.. has anybody stopped to consider if we dont scramble effective air cover , within minutes you would have Russian military aircraft over London ! I guess this isn't a major concern to many citizens of our country as long as they get their benefits and allowances... Mr Putin is having fun with his games and there is IS... oh and the threat from home grown terrorism ..oh and not forgetting the Argies , with all that newly found gas and oil by British companies... You see , there really is a need to be worried about defence spending ..I dont want my Forces to be "Reserve" Participating in 20 training days a year , i want a full time fit for purpose , well trained and ready to respond armed forces , some things are worth paying our taxes on, the security of our beloved country and the responsibility of keeping its citizens safe should be the new Governments top priority not a dirty word. Thank you for reading.

  • Alan Ryan - 3 years ago

    I have asked this question to Conservative and Labor Parties. I have reviewed your manifesto and want more information on what your intentions are, or more importantly goals are in developing defense. I am fully aware of the current government policy to increase the Reserves and decrease the number of Regular Forces, without funding the additional burden on the Reservist Support Staff. This is of course having a detrimental effect on moral in the support staff. How will you do this? If savings are being made by reducing the Regular Forces, then some of these savings (not all), must be passed on to the Reserves to support a larger Reservist force. There is no mention of you having a defined plan and how you will achieve this step change to increase Reserves and Reduce Regulars. What is your intention? Will you continue to reduce the Regular Armed Forces further with an expectation that you can increase the Reserves without funding it? Will you provide additional funding to the Reserves to achieve a larger Reserve Force? Thoughts Please!

  • Jon Fox - 4 years ago

    Okay, so im guessing the people who voted yes don't understand or are against military service but i can overlook their ignorance for now. I served in the British army i was discharged for a medical medical condition that has broken damaged my optical nerve in my right eye for those who are surly going to preach i don't know what im talking about im not their now. when i served i went away with some Americans we used THEIR KIT because it was higher quality than ours in fact i saw at least 6 or 7 guys buy AK47's from locals because their SA80 was damaged and we couldn't get the parts (BTW SA80 STANDS FOR Standard Arms For The 1980'S yes thats right we are the ONLY superpower still using a right hand only rifle which immediately alienates anyone with weak sight in the right eye ) we NEED to spend more we have the WEAKEST military in the world and i do not want to see them introduce conscription again they spend millions on nuclear subs and missile maintenance we do not need them no one will use them everyone else has them because everyone has them its like pogs you all wanted them because everyone else had them. here are some figures
    our active personal is 156,940 across all armed forces
    we have 77 commissioned RN warships and 160 aircraft for them
    The Army has 50 battalions (36 regular and 14 territorial)
    and i was unable to find the
    number of aircraft though i believe it is in the region of 10 squadrons

    so here is a breakdown
    our equipment is outdated and needs to be replaced
    we have the smallest military in the western world
    their are terrorist organisations with larger military and better equipment
    the people who voted yes on this are idiots

    thank you for reading

  • David Hardwick - 4 years ago

    We are no longer a world power with an empire to defend. We should spend only on defence and not try to police the world by acting as a US lapdog in its attempts to dominate the western world by interfering in others arguments.

  • lone warrior - 4 years ago

    We enshrine foreign aid in law but not the defence of our nation . wrong wrong wrong .
    The governments first obligation is to defence , not to a PM,s vanity project

  • Tony Smith - 4 years ago

    Michael Fallon should read the article in the Defense News which states that France has displaced the Britain as the key US military ally.
    That shows how far behind our defense forces are, and likely to fall further behind.

  • Ian Laventure - 4 years ago

    Service numbers in uniform helps employment and provides training in many fields post service

  • David Crook - 4 years ago

    The cuts that our government has made is extremely worrying. The Putin and others around the world is acting, shows that we need to make sure we can react to any situation. I used to be proud of the ARMY, NAVY and AIR FORCE. The size of it now is embarrising and alarming! Always proud of the people who serve though. PLEASE UP OUR SPENDING!!!

  • Simon Marshall - 4 years ago

    The Poll shows that Defence should be a major issue in the Election. The British people are rightly increasingly concerned by threats to our security on a broad and uncertain front. Putin's expansionist policies to repatriate Russian speakers into their mother country by military invasion, writ large and a now admitted for stategic Crimea, and de facto in place in Eastern Ukraine, are unlikely to stop there. He will push the boundaries of Western resolve again, as such would be consistent with his actions so far. He may calculate that, despite the Baltic States' NATO status, that Obama, Cameron and Merkel may consider Estonia, for example, to be a far away country of which we know little. not worth the terrible risk of superpower conflict. Hitler's ambition in the mid 1930s was much the same. IS remains a major theat in Iraq and Syria and theñ beyond . Boko Haran , Al qieda. and Nuclear dysfuntional states point ashows a lot of threats threats to addressed with restored and updated military resources ASAP

  • Simon Marshall - 4 years ago

    The Poll shows that Defence should be a major issue in the Election. The British people are rightly increasingly concerned by threats to our security on a broad and uncertain front. Putin's expansionist policies to repatriate Russian speakers into their mother country by military invasion, writ large and a now admitted for stategic Crimea, and de facto in place in Eastern Ukraine, are unlikely to stop there. He will push the boundaries of Western resolve again, as such would be consistent with his actions so far. He may calculate that, despite the Baltic States' NATO status, that Obama, Cameron and Merkel may consider Estonia, for example, to be a far away country of which we know little. not worth the terrible risk of superpower conflict. Hitler's ambition in the mid 1930s was much the same. IS remains a major theat in Iraq and Syria and theñ beyond . Boko Haran , Al qieda. and Nuclear dysfuntional states point ashows a lot of threats threats to addressed with restored and updated military resources ASAP

  • steve-b - 4 years ago

    Maybe if we didnt give all our money abroad we could afford the army we need

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment